Posted
by
timothy
on Thursday October 20, 2011 @12:06PM
from the how-amazing-was-it dept.

Nethead writes "At TAM 2011, presented by The James Randi Foundation (JREF), a panel with Pamela Gay, Lawrence Krauss, Bill Nye, and Neil deGrasse Tyson, and moderated by Phil Plait, discussed our future in space in an environment where they could freely express their opinions. This is an hour-long video (so lay off first-posts until you've watched it) with humor, depth and frank realism. Where do we spend our dwindling monetary science funding, manned or robotic exploration?"

This is SlashDot, not CNN.com. We don't have an hour of free time to blow - we scan, pick out the important bits and GTF on with our day.

So Slashdot is a soundbite culture, just like the plebs we're so keen to whine about in the comments. If it isn't already distilled into talking points, it's not profitable enough for us to deal with. Sounds great! My free time is far more valuable than actually understanding something! Go lowest common denominator!

Also, many people post from work, like I am doing now, most workplaces aren't keen on an employee watching a video for an hour at work, but it's easier to get away with reading something at work than watching a video.

Yes, exploration noble goal which is worth far more than the small amount of money spent. Throughout human history it has improved our situation immensely if only through the technologies created to do so.

I'm about to blow 10 mod points, all so I can inform you exactly why your question is utterly unacceptable. That is to say... what in the hell is wrong with you? Should we spend money on cutting edge science and technology? YES. Unequivocally. I wonder, do you have any idea what the space program did for the state of the art in a dozen fields? Are you even slightly aware that the entire computer culture you enjoy today started in the Apollo program? Texas instruments created the first IC for the Apollo program.

Even more fundamental than that, we live on a planet. 1 planet. Which we know goes through various cycles which are not necessarily conducive to the continued existence of complicated life forms. At the most fundamental level, "space" exploration is our only long term chance at survival. If you can't understand that, I would ask that you hold your tongue and let the adults with worthy opinions dominate the discussion. I'm not saying we need to get humans off of earth on colonies, although I do support that idea, I'm saying that the technology we gain from trying to do things that are "impossible" (moon landing), is fundamental to our continued survival on this biosphere, which we seem to be destroying or altering at alarming rates. Oh, you don't believe in anthropomorphic environmental change? Then you are a fucking moron. In the last 100 years, 60% of the trees on earth have been cut down. If that ALONE isn't a major change in your mind, you can't possibly be smart enough to participate in this discussion.

Not only is space our most likely savior in terms of resources, survival and technological enhancement, it's also one of two "frontiers" that are still left. All other things being forgotten, exploring the frontiers is good enough reason. We as a species knew that 100 years ago. Why did we forget it?

Engineered "people" that are at the least space-adapted (can take much more hard radiation, don't need gravity, etc.) should be our goal.

Don't forget to replace their feet with a second set of hands, since the extra set of hands will be useful and you don't need feet in freefall. _Falling Free_ [wikipedia.org] was a pretty good book. Of course, the genetically adapted for freefall humans in that book run into an obsolescence problem when artificial gravity is invented.

And your dream is worth pissing hundreds of billions of dollars down the shitter for? We can all dream, but I've never seen a sensible rationale for putting men any further into space than we already do - frankly, even that is questionable. Going back to the Moon would be an enormous waste of money unless we plan on exploiting its minerals and the fact that we can pollute the far side however much we like, and even that would be prohibitively expensive. Going further than the Moon would be horrifically expe

Yes. Wanting to personally go out in space is a laughably childish desire. Only a fool could possibly hope for it to be realistic at any reasonable cost or to anything beyond a suborbital amusement park ride.

Just a question, how much technology came out of WWII? Reality is far more important, and how many dreams NEVER go further than the dream stage?The universe says a big "fuck you" to dreamers all the time. Welcome to adulthood!

Hahahaha! That's your retort? "Fuck you"? Feel free to dream - the rest of us will live in reality glad that the dreamers aren't pissing away what little money is left to us chasing their dreams. Yes, I know the US spends trillions of dollars on the military. That doesn't suddenly mean it's fine to spend hundreds of billions on sending a few ex-pilots into space to achieve something a robot would achieve for a tiny fraction of the cost and much less risk.

Let me encourage everyone in this thread to go read THE CASE FOR MARS by Robert Zubrin. The goal is not "...sending a few ex-pilots into space to achieve something a robot would achieve for a tiny fraction of the cost..." The goal is a growing, self-sufficient colony for humans on another planet. It's not impossible, it's not centuries away, it's not any more risky than plenty of other things Americans have done.

The initial costs seemed extreme to send explorers sailing west from Spain, but the greater

"The goal" you talk about is Zubrin's goal, and it's totally laudable if unrealistic. Thing is, we're working in reality. Reality does not recommend bankrupting yourself on a risk when there are better ways of making money nearer home. Mars is a dream and will remain so for a long time. The Moon is realistic but it's very hard to make an economic argument for - or you can bet the Americans or Chinese already would have done.

As for a colony on Mars being realistic and "not any more risky than plenty of other

If you think about it as well, how long did it take Columbus to reach the Americas? How long is the trip to Mars? Columbus wasn't able to take on more food, or more water, the only things he had for free was heat and air, which is a solvable problem in space. Once we start building colonies on the moon, it is a small step to build a ship in orbit capable of the trip to Mars.

I also would like to add, the launch from Earth to space is a solved problem, a launch loop is perfectly doable with today's technol

Good that you post anonymously too - otherwise you may have had to point out that I'm also a theoretical physicist and a cosmologist. The bit you wouldn't know from the bio you read is that my future career also rests on satellites and on governments being willing to pursue space science.

The point, which so many here seem to miss in a curiously emotional response to human space flight, is that science can be advanced *so much further* by unmanned missions than manned missions. Manned missions are extraordin

You're against spending any more money on space exploration yet you offer no logical reasons for this. Space has shown to be immensely profitable, we have hundreds of satellites up there, orbiting the earth, providing vital roles to keep our modern world going. The potential for energy generation and mineral extraction are tantalizing. Thanks to Virgin Galactic and other private ventures, in the next five years, we are going to have more humans go to space than we have had in the past fifty years! A Luddite

Ah yes, the old bait and switch. No, nobody is against sending satellites into orbit, exploring the solar system and beyond, and so forth. We are against wasting money on manned space exploration because far from being "immensely profitable" to society, it is a huge, useless money sink that is only "immensely profitable" for the highly influential military-industrial-congressional complex. This is not being a Luddite. Those of us who oppose manned space exploration are the most vigorous proponents of roboti

Exactly! Though I don't even knock the military-industrial-congressional complex so much, partly because I'm not American and partly because there's a hell of a lot of money sloshing around in that system and it provides a hell of a lot of jobs and keeps alive a lot of manufacturing.

Yes, I lack the vision to see that spending the equivalent of a small country's GDP on putting three men onto Mars where they'll liable only get radiation poisoning anyway and go insane with tedium is the best thing that could ever happen to Earth!!!!!

Seriously, grow up.

"You're against spending any more money on space exploration"

No I'm not, I'm against spending more money on *manned* space exploration until there's something more useful that can come out of it than a few grainy shots of astronauts bouncing

And your dream is worth pissing hundreds of billions of dollars down the shitter for?

You seem to be forgetting that money is imaginary. When talking about the future of the human race in general, which space exploration is certainly about, money is moot. The reality is about manpower and raw materials. While the cost of space exploration is high in both categories, the raw materials are an investment, as we are guaranteed to run out on earth (as long as we don't die out) and space promises vast untapped sources. In terms of manpower, we have a manpower surplus at the moment, the only sustainable labour sinks we have are war and space exploration. I stipulate that manned space exploration is rarely worthwhile, specifically it is only worthwhile in cases where humans are superior to machines at doing the required work. In 99% of space exploration the machines are far better. There are exceptions however, the ISS being a big one, I am fairly sure we cant fully automate all 0g research. The fact that there are exceptions also means that missions where humans aren't absolutely necessary are nevertheless useful as they pioneer techniques for the ones where humans are necessary. It also seems to me that one day machines will surpass humans in all remaining areas of space exploration, but when we get to that stage we should have various refueling stations around the solar system and the added cost of a bit of tourism is unlikely to be a major factor. Money is irrelevant and this world wide obsession with it we are currently experiencing is absurd and counter productive. I will pay you a billion monopoly dollars (digital images, you will have to print them off yourself) to allow us to continue the relevant parts of the discussion.

Yeah but you're forgetting that that imaginary money governs our lives. I'm aware that if the whole world at the same time decided to declare money imaginary we'd be able to do anything - but that's not the reality. Maybe if the developed nations of the world (including India and China, and obviously Russia, the EU and the USA) agreed to do this and fund it by a mutual fund then it would be great - but that won't happen, in all reality. The raw materials may be an investment, if it works out, but it may ver

I didn't watch the video but I’ll give my opinion anyway since this is/. after all. Anyway, space exploration, either robot or manned, is critical to the long term safety of mankind. So, significant amounts of money and time should be invested into research and development. That said though, I feed we need to slow down the number of launches. Launches simply cost too much money, and I'm not convinced that they return enough to warrant their expense. Is now really the time to be considering sending a

Inspire people with a frontiering spirit to get into science and engineering. Be the first step on the long road to established human life somewhere other than Earth. I give not even one shit about any science NASA does on missions - it's the vision and inspiration that matters. The notion that it's important to think beyond here and now, to have (literally) lofty goals. To do something really hard to do, to show what man is capable of (and to get all the nice byproducts of the research needed to make h

I hate that false dichotomy. The argument is n[pt Manned or robotos for space; it's anned AND robotics.The only real question is: WHat's the mission and whats the goal?

If you are going tlo drill through a sheet of ice to look for life on a moon thats awash with extreme raistion and it will take months? then Robotic. Simple.Want to get an overview and just some surface sampling to run a few minor experiments on? robotic.Want a lot of work done quickly? Manned/. Want to prove we can put a person their and bri

The problem then becomes developing robots that are anywhere near as capable as a human being. A human on Mars would take a lot more support than, for example, Spirit and Opportunity, but would be able to cover all the ground they've covered in a small fraction of the time they've taken.

I know these names from some of my favorite podcasts. I'm going to toss them out here for people who aren't familiar with them, and please respond with similar podcasts if you love some.

The Skeptics Guide To The Universe (sponsored by JREF)AstronomyCast (Pamela Gay)NOVA scienceNOW or NOVA|PBS (often features Tyson)Planetary Radio (Bill Nye The Planetary Guy)Skeptoid (related topics by Brian Dunning)Radiolab (related topics, best of the best of the best)

You don't like Skeptoid? I like that it is single-topic and about 10-to-15 minutes long. I also like that Dunning usually has his facts straight before he records, which sets him apart from, say, Stuff You Should Know.

Build a moon base with manufacturing facilitiesBuild mining facilities in the asteroid beltBuild orbital assemblyBuild a ship large enough to make the Mars journey

The time it took Columbus to reach the Americas is approximately the same amount of time it would take to fly to Mars, if we send missions ahead, we could have all the needed supplies moved into Mars orbit well before anyone gets there. This is a solvable problem, and is entirely possible. Everyone who t

We are life. When we go, life goes. When we colonize, we are/carry the seeds of life. Life is greedy, selfish, etc. - that's what Life is. It concentrates resources in order to maintain its living state. Compared to a wolf or an amoeba, we have a pretty high level of altruism within tribes, within the species, and with respect to all other Life and even inanimate resources. The fact that we complain about how greedy and selfish we are illustrates the fact that we care at all about such things. Most L

The only way humans will go to Mars will be if a new Cold War starts. I'm happy that Neil deGrasse Tyson eloquently raised this point with the audience (~minute 28).
To get more funding for science, we really need to play up the geo-political advantages. Appealing to the love of knowledge might convince the Slashdot crowd, but it won't pry open the coffers of any nation.

but spending a trillion dollars to win a pissing contest while we're cutting Social Security, selling off parks, and laying off tens of thousands of government employees seems, I don't know, kind of stupid.

Agreed. There is NOTHING and I mean nothing out there that needs a manned mission right now. Maybe in a few thousand years from now when we have fusion generators and have really advanced in technology where is it realistic to go to Mars and other planets it would make sense. Let the Chinese race back to the moon and to mars. Long duration living on moons will greatly shorten anyone who goes there lifespan and Mars is just suicide at this point. There are just so many ways for someone to die going to M

We don't have the technology. It is just science fiction and in your head. Anyone that tries it today with today's technology is dead and dead. Between the radiation that they would be exposed to (from the sun alone) and micrometeorites, anyone going is dead. And there is just no good reason to go either. There is nothing on Mars (or the Moon) that we need. Maybe in a few thousand years when we have the technology to travel to planets like mars safely and in numbers, then it would make sense. But, no

What technology do you think we lack? If we build manufacturing in orbit, mining on the moon and asteroids, then build the ship in orbit, we could most definitely make it to Mars, and survive the harsh environment just fine.

We have no technology to resist micrometeorites. These things fly around at 60,000+kph and punch through anything we have. It is inevitable that a certain percentage of the crew will be killed by these (depending on how quickly we could actually get to Mars and back). We have no technology for remotely mining the moon nor do we know if there is or where the ore might be that we would be require for manufacturing the ship. Anyone that physically mines the moon will eventually die due to radiation exposur

Surround the crew quarters with the water supply in a frozen state. Repair the damage quickly when it is noticed. Who cares about remote mining the moon, put people in a colony there with an escape ship just like the ISS. Radiation exposure is a non issue on the moon if you just build the living quarters underground. Moon gravity isn't the issue no gravity is, they just need to be more active, which is remarkably easier on the moon than freefall. You haven't given anything we can't solve. The ship can

What do you mean I haven't mentioned something that can't be solved? Micrometeorites will go right through frozen water, the crew, and out the other side like it was a piece of paper (now you have one or more dead crew). Rinse and repeat. Also, low gravity is a very big problem over a long time. We can't tolerate that environment for very long. Also, digging into the moon and building a moon base will be very difficult to achieve and very expensive. Can many problems be solved if you shove enough mone

but spending a trillion dollars to win a pissing contest while we're cutting Social Security, selling off parks, and laying off tens of thousands of government employees seems, I don't know, kind of stupid.

It won't cost in the low tens of billions to go to Mars. With today's technology, if you wanted to go (and not kill everyone in the process) you literally have to put an armored space station up there and send it to mars. You'd need meters of lead between them and the sun for example just to keep them from dying from radiation exposure to the sun. That is going to cost 100's of billions to launch into space. You'd need a massive space ship with rotating sections to provide micro-gravity for the long tim

It won't cost in the low tens of billions to go to Mars. With today's technology, if you wanted to go (and not kill everyone in the process) you literally have to put an armored space station up there and send it to mars. You'd need meters of lead between them and the sun for example just to keep them from dying from radiation exposure to the sun. That is going to cost 100's of billions to launch into space. You'd need a massive space ship with rotating sections to provide micro-gravity for the long time it would take to get there (months). You'd need the ship highly armored with many self-sealing sections for when it is punctured by micrometeorites (and those still might kill the crew)...

The sky is falling, eh?

The ISS has been floating in a far more hostile micrometeorite environment than either interplanetary travel or Mars orbit represents. For years. (And only occasionally has to dodge a flying bolt.) Think of all the debris we've added to the near-Earth region - all that is missing, at least for now, from the rest of the solar system.

As for radiation, there is no doubt that cosmic rays, and even more so, solar activity, represent a risk. However, the MARIE instrument on the Mars Odyssey

You really don't know very much about the difference between near orbit and travelling in the solar system do you?
ISS is in near earth orbit for example. It is protected by the earth's magnetic field so the Sun's solar radiation doesn't kill the inhabitants. In fact, if you go to the Moon, you are still in the field and so you don't need as much protection. The earth's magnetic shield is just that large. However, if you leave the earth's electromagnetic field (like go to Mars), you will be saturated w

I wonder if you would feel the same way if, in 1956 they had felt as you do. You would not have computers. You would not have internet. You would not have refrigeration technology that is clean, self contained and safe. You would not have "freeze dried" foods, you would not have satelites, or geo-imaging. You wouldn't have super sonic aircraft. Among the many other things you would not have today, if it were not for the cold war and the space program.

It is mutually exclusive. Going to mars is a trillion dollar + nightmare and HUGE waste of money. If china wants to go to the moon and mars, let them. There is nothing out there that we need. We can invent plenty of technology without going and who cares if china succeeds (I promise you they won't - even living on the moon for an extended period of time is a death sentence due to radiation exposure and low gravity). We don't need to waste our money and stupid adventures like this any more. We have mor

C'mon. It's Bill Nye the muddafuggin Science Guy, Neil deFrikkinGrasse Tyson, the Slacker Astronomy chick, and the physicist who wrote "The Physics of Star Trek". Bill is awesome (as always), Tyson and Krauss spend half their time lobbing verbal jabs at each other, and Dr. Gay throws in a couple insightful points.

I was in the audience at this event and this was probably the most popular session of the weekend. There were some restless murmurs in the crowd when Tyson didn't speak for several minutes at the start. He just stared straight ahead, but he soon made up for it.

I likened it to a scene from one of those kung fu movies where the master drinks quietly while a fight breaks out around him, before he suddenly jumps in and starts kicking ass.

No mod points and the ac above me is sitting at 0.
"There is a fabulous oration by Neil deGrasse Tyson during the Q&A, in response to a statement that "we can't afford" space exploration. Alone this makes the 53 minutes a worthwhile investment in time."

and the ac is mostly right except that it was in response to no money for manned space exploration, though Tyson's response applies to the whole of science and space exploration.

We have no low gravity develop or test facilities for research. Robots take too damn long to develop a single research line. Ten people on a Moon/Mars base would develop more in one year than 100 years of robots researching. Business cases that take 5 to 10 years for a single research line. We have no industry developed in space to take advantage of there might be in a space use case.

I think all this arguing over cost helps to illustrate my frustrations with the manned space programs thus far. While I support manned exploration if for only that fact that it is hugely inspiring to a people (and don't discount the intangible effects of morale) their prohibitive cost and single mindedness of national pride keeps us from being able to successfully pursue it. All of the detractors in here keep going on and on about how expensive it is to send people into space and all of the supporters keep

Lets cooperate on it. Have China build the orbital manufacturing, the US can build the moon and asteroid mining complexes, the ESA can coordinate the orbital construction. How hard would it be to have those two countries and ESA do all that? It is well within their ability to do it. If we have all of them cooperate on building a launch loop (doable with current tech, unlike space elevator which requires materials we can't even make), it would make it near enough to free to put stuff into orbit. While t